Galileo: The Telescope & the Laws of Dynamics

Galileo Galilei was a pivotal figure in the development of modern astronomy, both because of his contributions directly to astronomy, and because of his work in physics and its relation to astronomy.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

He provided the crucial observations that proved the Copernican hypothesis, and also laid the foundations for a correct understanding of how objects moved on the surface of the earth (dynamics) and of gravity.

Newton, who was born the same year that Galileo died, would build on Galileo's ideas to demonstrate that the laws of motion in the heavens and the laws of motion on the earth were one and the same. Thus, Galileo began and Newton completed a synthesis of astronomy and physics in which the former was recognized as but a particular example of the latter, and that would banish the notions of Aristotle almost completely from both. 

One could, with considerable justification, view Galileo as the father both of modern astronomy and of modern physics. 

The Telescope

Galileo did not invent the telescope (Dutch spectacle makers receive that credit), but he was the first to use the telescope to study the heavens systematically. His little telescope was poorer than even a cheap modern amateur telescope, but what he observed in the heavens rocked the very foundations of Aristotle's universe and the theological-philosophical worldview that it supported. It is said that what Galileo saw was so disturbing for some officials of the Church that they refused to even look through his telescope; they reasoned that the Devil was capable of making anything appear in the telescope, so it was best not to look through it. 

Sunspots

Galileo observed the Sun through his telescope and saw that the Sun had dark patches on it that we now call sunspots. Furthermore, he observed motion of the sunspots indicating that the Sun was rotating on an axis. 

These "blemishes" on the Sun were contrary to the doctrine of an unchanging perfect substance in the heavens, and the rotation of the Sun made it less strange that the Earth might rotate on an axis too, as required in the Copernican model. Both represented new facts that were unknown to Aristotle and Ptolemy. 

The Moons of Jupiter

Galileo observed 4 points of light that changed their positions with time around the planet Jupiter. He concluded that these were objects in orbit around Jupiter. Indeed, they were the 4 brightest moons of Jupiter, which are now commonly called the Galilean moons (Galileo himself called them the Medicea Siderea---the "Medician Stars'').

These observations again showed that there were new things in the heavens that Aristotle and Ptolemy had known nothing about. Furthermore, they demonstrated that a planet could have moons circling it that would not be left behind as the planet moved around its orbit. One of the arguments against the Copernican system (and the original heliocentric idea of Aristarchus) had been that if the moon were in orbit around the Earth and the Earth in orbit around the Sun, the Earth would leave the Moon behind as it moved around its orbit. 

The Phases of Venus

Galileo used his telescope to show that Venus went through a complete set of phases, just like the Moon. This observation was among the most important in human history, for it provided the first conclusive observational proof that was consistent with the Copernican system but not the Ptolemaic system. 

The crucial point is the empirical fact that Venus is never very far from the Sun in our sky (see the discussion of aspects & phases of the inferior planets). Thus, as the following diagrams indicate, in the Ptolemaic system Venus should always be in crescent phase as viewed from the Earth because as it moves around its epicycle it can never be far from the direction of the sun (which lies beyond it), but in the Copernican system Venus should exhibit a complete set of phases over time as viewed from the Earth because it is illuminated from the center of its orbit.

Phases of Venus in the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems

It is important to note that this was the first empirical evidence (coming almost a century after Copernicus) that allowed a definitive test of the two models. Until that point, both the Ptolemaic and Copernican models described the available data. The primary attraction of the Copernican system was that it described the data in a simpler fashion, but here finally was conclusive evidence that not only was the Ptolemaic universe more complicated, it also was incorrect.

Myriad Observations Showing Phenomena Unknown to Aristotle

In addition to the observations noted above, Galileo made many other observations that undermined the authority on which the Ptolemaic universe was built. Some of these included:

As each new wonder was observed, increasing doubt was cast on the prevailing notion that there was nothing new to be observed in the heavens because they were made from a perfect, unchanging substance. It also raised the credibility issue: could the authority of Aristotle and Ptolemy be trusted concerning the nature of the Universe if there were so many things in the Universe about which they had been completely unaware?

Galileo and the Leaning Tower

Galileo made extensive contributions to our understanding of the laws governing the motion of objects. The famous Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment may be apocryphal. It is likely that Galileo himself did not drop two objects of very different weight from the tower to prove that (contrary to popular expectations) they would hit the ground at the same time. However, it is certain that Galileo understood the principle involved, and probably did similar experiments. The realization that, as we would say in modern terms, the acceleration due to gravity is independent of the weight of an object was important to the formulation of a theory of gravitation by Newton.

Galileo and the Concept of Inertia

Perhaps Galileo's greatest contribution to physics was his formulation of the concept of inertia: an object in a state of motion possesses an ``inertia'' that causes it to remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it. In order to arrive at this conclusion, which will form the cornerstone of Newton's laws of motion (indeed, it will become Newton's First Law of Motion), Galileo had to abstract from what he, and everyone else, saw. 

Most objects in a state of motion do NOT remain in that state of motion. For example, a block of wood pushed at constant speed across a table quickly comes to rest when we stop pushing. Thus, Aristotle held that objects at rest remained at rest unless a force acted on them, but that objects in motion did not remain in motion unless a force acted constantly on them. Galileo, by virtue of a series of experiments (many with objects sliding down inclined planes), realized that the analysis of Aristotle was incorrect because it failed to account properly for a hidden force: the frictional force between the surface and the object. 

Thus, as we push the block of wood across the table, there are two opposing forces that act: the force associated with the push, and a force that is associated with the friction and that acts in the opposite direction. Galileo realized that as the frictional forces were decreased (for example, by placing oil on the table) the object would move further and further before stopping. From this he abstracted a basic form of the law of inertia: if the frictional forces could be reduced to exactly zero (not possible in a realistic experiment, but it can be approximated to high precision) an object pushed at constant speed across a frictionless surface of infinite extent will continue at that speed forever after we stop pushing, unless a new force acts on it at a later time. 

Galileo and the Church

Galileo's challenge of the Church's authority through his assault on the Aristotelian conception of the Universe eventually got him into deep trouble with the Inquisition. Late in his life he was forced to recant publicly his Copernican views and spent his last years essentially under house arrest. His story certainly constitutes one of the sadder examples of the conflict between the scientific method and "science" based on unquestioned authority.  Unfortunately, there still are many forces in modern society that would shackle the scientific method of open enquiry in idealogical chains of one kind or another.

10/01/2017